Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Lechmere]

Well I guess you can be left to discuss your highly credible and popular theory among yourselves!

[Fisherman]

Thanks for your post, Fish.

It shows how out of your mind you are.

Mathematics aren't your hobby, it seems.

Even with numbers, you fail to provide any normal reasoning.

See you, and thanks again for the fun.

On the contrary - mathematics are an exact discipline. It cannot be faulted. And it shows very clearly that much as you will have it that the Victorians were half or height or something along those lines, they were actually no such thing at all. They were comparatively a bit shorter, but thatīs about it.

People over 2 metres were unusual back then, but they are unusual today too, albeit somewhat less unusual. But we should not buy into any suggestion that Evans was an extremely rare creature heightwise - thatīs the point I am making. Galton suggests that 500 men in London reached 6 ft 5 or over at the time we are looking at. That says it all.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon,

then your mate is shorter than JF would have been according to the Stone records, but heavier than he ever was from 1892 to 1895 (in his thirties).

And 6'7 in 1888 is more than one inch taller than 6'6 in 2000.

Cheers

Indeed David. But not much in it.

A Victorian Eastender will always be a tad lighter than one born in the 1970`s.

The funny thing is that although I followed this thread I didn`t even think of my mate - maybe showing that it may be possible for people not to mention a "giant".

[The Good Michael]

Why are you guys arguing this? Of course 6'7" is possible and of course a mistake can be made in a ledger. Why go further? You just aggravate each other. I want proof that Fleming wasn't so tall. When I get it, I'll say, "Cool." Doesn't make him a murderer of course and changes nothing for me.

Mike

[DVV]

Thanks for your post, Fish.

It shows how out of your mind you are.

Mathematics aren't your hobby, it seems.

Even with numbers, you fail to provide any normal reasoning.

See you, and thanks again for the fun.

[Fisherman]

6'7 in 1888 is more than one inch taller than 6'6 in 2000.

Actually, it is not. It is exactly and precisely one inch taller. But I see what you mean, and itīs an important point.

So letīs see how much we are talking about! The average height back then was 5 ft 6, apparently, meaning 167 centimeters, whereas it is nowadays 177 centimeters.

So, the Victorian man reached 94,2 per cent of todays height.

And therefore, we should use the number 1,06 to multiply that inch. And an inch is 2,54 centimeters. So an 1888 inch should represent an inch of 2,69 centimeters today.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I have never once argued that "5 people are on my side and only 3 on yours, so I win". I've simply observed that those who push for extremely unpopular Johnny-come-lately suspects of their own ought to be mindful of that fact and cultivate a bit of humility when attempting to shoot down - in this case with an astonishing lack of success - other suspect theories. If I've argued anything along the lines of "I’m going to argue on and on and on until everyone is bored and I get the last word" it was out of exasperation, and aimed at those who think that reams and reams of long-winded, highly repetitive posts are going to "wear out" the opposition. Just grit your teeth, and accept that this isn't going to happen. Try the "agree to disagree" approach instead, just for some variety.

Lechmere,

I suggested that it is likely that the J Division police in Bethnal Green checked the asylum registers in Bethnal Green from time to time.

But not as late as 1893, because by then the statement had been made by the official with overall charge of the investigation that the ripper was known to have been caged in an asylum, thus rendering pointless the act of looking for the killer in the registers of a different asylum to the one the "definitely ascertained" ripper was in. It was pointless for another reason too - nobody had a hope in hell of ascertained the guilt or innocence or a madman who had been alone and "on the loose" five years previously.

That is why the police didn't notice Fleming in the 1893 registers - because they weren't looking at the these registers, and certainly not because Fleming was cleared in 1888. He was a known user of an alias who had moved into Whitechapel - most probably the Victoria Home - in late 1888. The chances of him being traced, let alone cleared, at that time were astronomically slim. And since you've argued that rumours leaked into the papers from the police, I use that argument against you now and observe that had Fleming been traced in 1888, it would have made the papers.

We can instantly dismiss the idea that the police realised in 1893 that Evans/Fleming was not Kelly's ex, because he most assuredly was. The latter was described a plasterer from Bethnal Green named Joseph Fleming, and since nobody apart from the man with the alias "James Evans" fits this description, the only reasonable conclusion is that they were one and the same.

There are several ‘police suspects’. Not one of them had their guilt crystalised beyond reasonable doubt. Kosminski was in an asylum. Yet they were spoken of.

From which we can conclude...?

There would have been many hundreds of individuals suspected at one time or other during the course of the Whitechapel. You're not seriously suggesting that all of these were absolved of suspicion (i.e. proven innocent) with the exception of the ones mentioned by Macnaghten?

I've always acknowledged that the police would have been interested in tracking down Kelly's allegedly abusive ex-boyfriend, but that doesn't mean they ever did so, and the overwhelming likelihood is that they didn't. I'm not suggesting they "shrugged their shoulders and forgot about him" either. However, 1893 was five years after the Kelly murder, and five years after Fleming's name was mentioned. In addition, top brass had decided by then that the ripper was safely caged in an asylum. When these factors are taken into consideration, it is doubly unlikely that anyone was still hunting for Fleming (who nobody at the inquest ever suggested was insane) in the asylum records in 1893.

It is clear that besides a couple of Scotland Yard officers (expressed in later years) no one else thought the case was closed and no one else acted as if the case was closed.

It doesn't matter what anyone else "thought", Lechmere. The "couple of Scotland Yard officers" just so happened to be the two men with overall command of the ripper investigation. The direction of the investigation was dictated by them. Please allow yourself to be disabused of this idea of the 1888 police as a democracy.

We know enough about the police investigation and their dealings with Charles Lechmere to be able to safely deduce that he was not closely looked at.

No, we don't.

He may or may not have been, although the idea that the police should have investigated the first man to discover the body and not the second is clearly preposterous, and the fact that Cross "seemed" nice whereas Paul "seemed" naughty would not have nullified this obvious reality. I'd say he was investigated, but I exercise caution in the absence of proof either way, as should you. They were far more likely to have investigated and cleared someone like Cross, who was in close communication with the police, than someone like Fleming, who almost certainly wasn't even located. It is impossible to sustain an argument for the reverse - absolutely impossible, considering how terrifyingly ludicrous such an argument would be.

Also being a householder, a family man and in regular employment he did not fit the criminal stereotype that the police were working to.

Exactly, he's not a legitimately suspicious character, whereas Fleming is. Already that makes the latter a better suspect. It follows logically. If Cross seemed to be an honest-to-goodness citizen with nothing suspicious about him, he probably was. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck etc. I'm afraid it's only the very few people who support the Cross theory who argue that not being suspicious is more suspicious than being obviously suspicious.

But on we move, immediately and without a fuss, back on topic.

Oh no, hang on, there's some Toppy stuff to deal with too, tiresomely.

While he was indeed living in a common lodging house off Tottenham Court Road in 1891 as a plumber, throughout the rest of that decade he then proceeded to live as a lodger (and plumber) in the very worst streets in South London – some of which made Dorset Street look positively middle class.

Well that last bit's definitely nonsense because we know Dorset Street was alluded to as the worst street in London, but if we ignore the exaggeration, yes, I get it, Toppy lived in some rough areas. However, this is no reflection on the extent of his earnings. Plumbers and plasterers earned respectable wages, regardless of where they were living, in comparison to dock labourers. This was researched and established to be the case well before you became a member here, so I'll thank you in advance not to tell me what I do and don't know with regards to the earnings of plasterers in that period in history.

You seem to think that erratic oddballs are suitable as grooms, labourers dock workers and costermongers – but not plasterers.

More acceptable perhaps, yes.

Would an erratic oddball pass muster with Sergeant Badham, Inspector Abberline and assorted journalists? Dew didn’t seem to think Flutchinson was an oddball either.

That's because neither of these people would been spending anything like as much time with Hutchinson as the Fleming's employers and customers would have done with him. Go and post to a more appropriate thread, please, if your intention is to challenge the theory that Fleming and Hutchinson were the same person. It's a plausible theory, and Fleming is an infinitely better candidate than Toppy. The next time I see anyone else attempting to start a Toppy/signature fight (not you, to be fair, Lechmere), I'll simply re-post contributions from years back.

Your efforts to demonstrate that the 6'7" was unlikely to be an error have been extremely unconvincing to me - considerably less convincing that Debs' experience-enriched and informed suggestion that the entry may be wrong. It is possible that the entry was written in inches, as Debs suggested, and then transcribed in feet in inches. It has happened before. There is also the known error on the document in the form of an incorrect age, and more than one instance of a very unusual "6" (160 years and 6'7") where a "5" would make considerably more sense. There is also the fact that such a height is wholly incompatible with such a low weight as 11 stone AND "good" bodily health. It just doesn't work.

Please don't keep saying that you've "gone into" things as though your assessments have never been challenged. They most certainly have been. Your claim, for instance, that Stone never discovered Fleming's true age is made a nonsense of by the fact that they were irrefutably in contact with the mother, who could have ensured that the entry was corrected at any stage.

Finally, I'm afraid you're onto a bit of a loser if you think Robert Sagar was rooting around looking for Jack the Ripper in asylum records in 1893. Sagar evidently believed that the "insane" individual from Butchers Row (i.e. a specific person who wasn't Joseph Fleming) was responsible for the crimes. He stated that after the man was caged in an asylum, there were no more murders. Since 1893 was considerably later than the last murder, it follows that Sagar's suspect was already in an asylum by then. So why would he be looking for Jack the Ripper in one asylum when he already believed he was at another?

Please note that my post is addressed to Lechmere and not you, Fisherman. I'm not trying to be horrible. I'm interested in what you have to say as well, and my next post will be to you, I promise. But I am anxious to avoid duplicate tag-team postings of the type that ruined and buried most of the Cross threads.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

Just popping back to the height issue .. I have a mate who is 6`6.
I told him about the discussion and asked him what weight he was in his late twenties and early thirties and he said about 13 stone. He`s now early 40`s and about 16 stone.

Also, no-one refers to him as a giant or mentions his height.

Funnily enough, he mentioned that he and his family were off on a caravaning holiday in Dorset. With the question I saw someone post about which lodging houses could accomodate a tall man, in mind, I asked him about sleeping in a caravan bed he just shrugged his shoulders and said, me feet stick out of the end of the bed.

Hi Jon,

then your mate is shorter than JF would have been according to the Stone records, but heavier than he ever was from 1892 to 1895 (in his thirties).

And 6'7 in 1888 is more than one inch taller than 6'6 in 2000.

Cheers

[DVV]

Not taking sides, however:

The new book (kindle) by the Sheldens makes clear that what Barnett knew of MJK's recent past (at least) was pretty accurate. On that basis, I see no reason why his information on Flemming should not have been equally precise.

Phil

Indeed, Phil.

What did Barnett say ?

That MJK was fond of one Joseph Fleming with whom she had been living in BG some 3 years earlier.

And this is confirmed by Mrs McCarthy.

And, ô divine surprise (en franįais), there was a plasterer named Joseph Fleming, born in BG in 1859, who moved to Whitechapel in September 1888 and ended up in an asylum in 1892 Under the alias of James Evans.

[Jon Guy]

Just popping back to the height issue .. I have a mate who is 6`6.
I told him about the discussion and asked him what weight he was in his late twenties and early thirties and he said about 13 stone. He`s now early 40`s and about 16 stone.

Also, no-one refers to him as a giant or mentions his height.

Funnily enough, he mentioned that he and his family were off on a caravaning holiday in Dorset. With the question I saw someone post about which lodging houses could accomodate a tall man, in mind, I asked him about sleeping in a caravan bed he just shrugged his shoulders and said, me feet stick out of the end of the bed.

[Fisherman]

Sally: I see - so Fleming can't have been the Ripper ...

I donīt believe you people! Why is it that whenever somebody expresses a greater belief in thesis A than in thesis B, you immediately claim that this somebody has categorically stated that only one of the alternatives can be correct???

We have no conclusive proof either way. But things have not been going the Flemingistīs way in later days, thatīs for sure. It is therefore not a giant intellectual leap to say that it today seems less credible that Fleming was the Ripper.

But to mistake this for any categorical dismissal of Fleming as a viable candidate is wrong, since that dismissal is not at hand.

All the best,
Sally

Of course, this should have been signed off

All the best, Sally
Fisherman

Sorry about the mistake,

Fisherman

[Phil H]

Your pitiful trick is to present "Joe the costermonger" as someone who had necessarily always been a costermonger, and as if Venturney was dead sure he was a costermonger.

And you want to present this (perhaps) costermonger as conflicting with Barnett's plasterer.

Unfortunately, Barnett made it clear that Fleming was a plasterer at the time he was living in BG with MJK. He said nothing about his trade in 1888.

Not taking sides, however:

The new book (kindle) by the Sheldens makes clear that what Barnett knew of MJK's recent past (at least) was pretty accurate. On that basis, I see no reason why his information on Flemming should not have been equally precise.

Phil

[Lechmere]

Or it could be the other Fleming who became a plasterer for a while in 1886 or so.
now you are in the mood for job swaps how about someone moving from groom to labourer to plumber?

[Fisherman]

Sally: I see - so Fleming can't have been the Ripper ...

I donīt believe you people! Why is it that whenever somebody expresses a greater belief in thesis A than in thesis B, you immediately claim that this somebody has categorically stated that only one of the alternatives can be correct???

We have no conclusive proof either way. But things have not been going the Flemingistīs way in later days, thatīs for sure. It is therefore not a giant intellectual leap to say that it today seems less credible that Fleming was the Ripper.

But to mistake this for any categorical dismissal of Fleming as a viable candidate is wrong, since that dismissal is not at hand.

All the best,
Sally

[DVV]

The police would have been interested in tracing any recent ex of Kelly's particularly as there was the possibility that he may have used violence (provided they did not know that the costermonger was someone else altogether). That doesn't make him a good suspect.

That is both dishonest and wrong, and has been already addressed.

Your pitiful trick is to present "Joe the costermonger" as someone who had necessarily always been a costermonger, and as if Venturney was dead sure he was a costermonger.

And you want to present this (perhaps) costermonger as conflicting with Barnett's plasterer.

Unfortunately, Barnett made it clear that Fleming was a plasterer at the time he was living in BG with MJK. He said nothing about his trade in 1888.

Since you know that, you're dishonest. Which is hardly academic.

And what is worse, is that we KNOW that Fleming/Evans, once a plasterer, wasn't anymore in the building trade in Nov 89.

There is no mystery here, no eternal plasterer, no eternal costermonger, no eternal dock labourer.

Here is a man, son of a plasterer, once a plasterer himself while in Bethnal Green, then a poor dosser, perhaps once a costermonger, then a dock labourer.